Ritter Wants Taxpayers To Share Superfund Cost

May 13, 1985|by RANDY KRAFT, The Morning Call

American consumers ultimately may pay the cost of an expanded Superfund program if U.S. Rep. Don Ritter succeeds in easing the financial burden on the petrochemical industry - which now pays most of the federal program to clean up hazardous waste sites.

The 15th District Republican - who predicts a stronger Superfund law will be passed by Congress this summer - also says he wants more money for the cleanup program than the $5.3 billion being sought by the Reagan administration.

Ritter said he doesn't think $5.3 billion is enough. He believes a "more substantial" amount, closer to $10 billion, will be approved by Congress for the next five years of the program.

"Superfund definitely will be reauthorized," said Ritter during a recent telephone interview, "and at a level far, far stronger with far greater resources than the present Superfund."

The current Superfund program expires at the end of September. Debate on the issue is expected to heat up in Congress during the next few months.

Ritter is on a House subcommittee that already is studying Superfund proposals. Last year he co-sponsored an unsuccessful attempt to designate $10.2 billion for a new Superfund program, while being criticized by environmental groups. They said Ritter's opposition to what they considered "strengthening amendments" was due to large political contributions he received from representatives of chemical companies and corporate polluters.

Ritter wants the new Superfund law to be "narrowly focused" only on cleaning up abandoned hazardous wastes sites, not complicated by issues such as communities' rights to know about nearby toxic hazards or compensation for victims of toxic dumping. He believes there may be merit to some of those proposals (though not victims' compensation), but they should not be part of Superfund.

Ritter explained the coming debate over new Superfund legislation not only will decide a dollar amount but also will address who pays for the program.

He favors changing the way Superfund money is generated. He thinks most of it should come from a "broad-based tax" on all corporations or the products they manufacture.

Either way, said Ritter, "It's eventually paid by the consumer. That should be clear."

"I believe there is a broad-based responsibility," said the legislator, who resides in Upper Saucon Township. "All of the American economy benefits from our technology. Chemicals are the grease for the gears of a modern industrial society.

"Society in general has been the user and beneficiary of chemicals in this century."

American petrochemical companies, which paid about 87 percent of the $1.6 billion allocated for the first five years of the Superfund program, will be lobbying hard to convince Congress that they should not be singled out - especially since the amount of money designated for the program is expected to increase considerably.

Ritter said continuing to make the chemical industry pay most of the cost for a more expensive Superfund "could effectively wipe out tens of thousands of jobs in what is our second major export industry."

"We have to look at other mechanisms to come up with this money," he said.

Last September, Congress Watch, a Ralph Nader group in Washington, said Ritter received $16,600 in political contributions from chemical industry political action committees since 1980. At that time, Ritter called those contributions insignificant and said they did not affect his voting.

During last week's interview Ritter said "responsible environmentalists" don't want to put the petrochemical industry - which he called "one of America's success stories" - out of business.

"Solid environmental thinking leans toward an expanded tax base," he said. "We have to levy the tax in a way that does the least damage to America's jobs, without putting a whole segment of the economy out of business. We do not want to put whole segments of this industrial, technological economy on welfare."

Ritter said even if the current Superfund tax on chemical companies is not increased, the petrochemical industry still would pay "the lion's share" of the program because it also might face new Superfund taxes for dumping hazardous wastes and on products it sells.

Environmental lobbyists want up to $13.5 billion for Superfund. They also want the chemical industry to continue paying the bulk of the program.

Ritter indicated $13.5 billion is unrealistically high. He complained that some who advocate such figures are making "political statements" to "beat up on chemicals" and increase membership in their organizations.

Ritter is a Republican on a Democratically controlled House subcommittee (Commerce, Transportation and Tourism) which is looking at re-authorization of Superfund.